biseyvarmi.com – Etkinlik Rehberi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds domain context (Istanbul timezone, biseyvarmi.com confirmation link) but says nothing about paging, cost, or auth, and most of what it lists is return content already covered by the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the operation first, then enumerating the returned fields. The field list is slightly dense but every clause maps to something an agent would want to know.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Rich annotations plus an existing output schema mean the description only needs to cover purpose and workflow linkage, which it does. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly from what is given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that 'id' comes from search results, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one event found with search' merely echoes that constraint without adding format or validation details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: fetch full details of one event, and explicitly ties it back to a prior 'search' rather than a list operation. That separates it from the 'search' sibling, though the second sibling 'search_events' is never acknowledged.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'found with search' implies the prerequisite workflow (search first, then fetch by id), which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the siblings or when not to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description still adds real behavior: how the query string is decomposed (place, event kind, time; remainder matched against title/performer/venue) and that results cap at 10 with ids. It doesn't note ranking, empty-result behavior, or whether listings are cached, so it isn't exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the geographic constraint, then the action, then the examples, then the return contract — a sensible order with no filler. The four example queries are slightly redundant given the parsing sentence that follows them, but they earn their place by showing language mixing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still gives the cap of 10 and the id handoff to `fetch`. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to `search_events` is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one fully described parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema baseline is 3. The description does add genuine parsing semantics beyond the schema's "The question, in Turkish or English" — explaining which fragments are interpreted as city/district, event type or time — but leaves the 120-character limit and what happens on unparseable input unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: searches live biseyvarmi.com listings from a natural-language question, Türkiye only. It clearly separates itself from `fetch` ("an id can be passed to fetch"), but never distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_events`, leaving the natural-language-vs-structured split to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete query examples and a hard geographic exclusion ("Türkiye only"), plus an explicit follow-up path to `fetch` for dates, venues and prices. It stops short of stating when to choose it over `search_events`, which is the one routing decision an agent still has to guess.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: current listings from a specific site, a 20-result cap with no paging, result links pointing to bise.ws pages where details are confirmed, and refusal reasons being returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the geographic and site scope, then moves through inputs and result behavior. It is somewhat dense and repeats a few schema details such as the 20-result cap and date behavior, but the Turkish search keywords and refusal behavior are useful rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential constraints, filtering guidance, result cap, link format, and refusal behavior. It does not fully describe the shape of each returned event record, but it gives enough for correct invocation and interpretation of result links.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics not encoded in the schema's required fields: at least one of city, category, or q must be supplied even though no parameter is formally required. It also reinforces that district filtering depends on city and that dates or words make results more specific.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it searches current event listings on biseyvarmi.com, scoped to Türkiye only. It enumerates event types, cities, districts, dates, venues, and prices, so an agent can immediately tell this is a Turkish event search tool rather than a generic search or fetch tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage conditions: at least one of city, category, or q is required, results are capped at 20 with no paging, and district/category/date/word filters make results more specific. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling tools `search` and `fetch`, so it falls short of full alternative routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.